COM 0225.010 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.Mary .r~nn x ~o~fif"WalCer 73 4z8o .xeokeo Street, .xailua xmza, .~falvaii 96740 ysoo, Phone ~8o8~3zs3183 Corrected June 1, 2005 Council Testimony, RE: Resolution 84-05, Condemnation of Matsumoto Road, Road Lot B, TMK 7-3-005-11 1. I am testifying today in hope the County Council will consider deferring Resolution 84-US until the ownership interests in Road Lot A, TMK 7-3-005-101 and safety concerns are resolved, (rather than promised to be addressed). This second road lot is essential in responsibly completing the connection of Holu and Keokeo as a through street. Both road parcels should be addressed together just as was done in Resolution 83-OS for the Ahiahi Kauhale connector, Proceeding with just the County's 75% interest in road parcel 101 is not a responsible decision. It is my understanding that one of the main reasons we have building codes, is to ensure public safety. To expedite completion of some the connectors, Public Works plans to build or expand already substandard roads and they will still not be up to code. I heard several council members ask both Public Works and Corp. Counsel if the County would be in good stead on a number of issues related to the connectors. As a lay person, it seems obvious that not following the County's own guidelines to ensure public safety is not keeping the County in good stead, but putting al I the people who will use the substandard connectors at risk. 'That equates to County liability to me. If you're going to do this, do it right. Complete the connectors to County standards. As I watched the broadcast of the committee meeting and l~' council reading it was understandingly obvious that some council members were confused because they are not familiar with the area. Several inaccurate statements and implications were also made. I'd like to clear up some misconceptions that I noticed on the video broadcasts. Please read t/iis before you vote if you haven'/ had a chance !o alreudy. Some of wha[ you mqv have understood is not correct. I . The road maintenance agreement for parcel 1 1 I, does not address parcel 101's 25% private ownership interest, which is also needed to complete the Holu Keokeo connector. 2. Mr. Takase stated that he had been in contact with the owners of parcel 101. This is not exactly true. I initiated the contact on npril 26°' or 27°' after seeing resolution 84-OS on the 5/3/05 committee agenda and told him I would let the others know what was going on. !last spoke with Mr. Takase April 29'x' regarding the documents 1 would be sending over, he assured me it would be okay if 1 pouched Chem over, and have heard nothing frorn him since then. Comm. No. Z ZS Page 1 of4 Ref. To: Prea.~.r ,z~ os~. Jl1N 1